Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.451
1. This is an appeal by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay against an award of the Tribunal of Appeal appointed under Section 48(3) of Bombay Act IV of 1898.2. The area of the land taken up is 5576 square yards and the Special Collector awarded a total sum of Rs. 65,511-2-0. On reference to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has increased that award to a total sum of Rs. 87,798. This works out to an average of Rs. 15-11-0 per square yard according to the present appellants, and to a few annas less according to the respondents. With this small difference we are not further concerned, and the real question before us--when all is said and done--amounts to this: Is the allowance of Rs. 15-11-0 per square yard shown to be excessive?3. Apart from the general principle which restrains a Court of Civil Appeal from interfering with any decree unless it is satisfied that that decree is wrong, we have here two special considerations which should deter us from lightly disturbing the aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1908)18MLJ590
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. For the purpose of this question the material facts and dates are as follows:Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 brought a suit against the 5th defend, ant, and on December roth 1899 attached certain paddy before judgment. The plaintiff put in a claim petition with respect to the paddy. On March 8th, 1900, this petition was dismissed. On March 26th, 1900, the plaintiff brought a suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure to establish his right to the property. On November i8th, 1901, he obtained a declaration as to his right. On February 7th, 1903, this declaration was affirmed on appeal. In the meantime, the property had been sold by the Court, and on May 15th, 1900, the proceeds had been distributed to the defendants, the 4th defendant having received his share as a party entitled to rateable distribution. On June 1st 1903, the present suit for a refund of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.325
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Madura (West), dismissing' the plaintiff's suit. The first plaintiff is a landowner of Madura who owns, among other villages, the inam village of Ananjiyur and the 4 villages, Koridagai, Thoothai, Pappangnlam and Karisalkulam, formerly attached to the Sivaganga Zamindari. Of Kondagai, the principal village, he is the Sub-Division Zamindar. Thoothai and Pap-pangulam are riparian villages. Karisalkulam, Ananjiyur and Kondagai are non-riparian but are directly or indirectly watered by small channels from the Vaigai. All the five villages are situated below Madura. On behalf of. himself and other riparian proprietors, the first plaintiff filed this suit early in 1901 together with a petition under Section 30, Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), alleging the following causes of action:(i) That the defendant had illegally and wrongfully constructed in June 1900 a work of a permanent and substantial character over the crest of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Murphy v. John Hofman Co. - 211 U.S. 562 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Murphy v. John Hofman Co., 211 U.S. 562 (1909) Murphy v. John Hofman Company No. 33 Argued December 1, 2, 1908 Decided January 4, 1909 211 U.S. 562 I N ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Where the bankruptcy court has the actual possession of property, the title to which is in dispute, that property is withdrawn from the jurisdiction of other courts, and, independently of any jurisdiction conferred by statute, the bankruptcy court, as is the case with other federal and state courts, has ancillary jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions respecting such title, and such jurisdiction cannot be disturbed by the process of any other court. Wabash Railroad v. Adelbert College, 208 U. S. 38 . Where one who has no other connection with the property is appointed receiver, his possession is that of the court, and not that of an individual. The seizure of goods in the possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown - 213 U.S. 25 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown, 213 U.S. 25 (1909) Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brown No. 74 Argued January 13, 14, 1909 Decided March 1, 1909 213 U.S. 25 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A life insurance company which has several hundred thousand policyholders is in its nature a public institution, and where there is no apprehension as to its solvency, a court of equity will consider all the facts as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of a receivership or accounting before granting relief of that nature in the suit of an individual policyholder even if jurisdiction to grant such relief exists. Page 213 U. S. 26 The fact that stockholders claim the surplus of an insurance company and the officers of the company do not actively deny the claim gives no ground for a receivership at the suit of a policyholder claiming that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hepner v. United States - 213 U.S. 103 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103 (1909) Hepner v. United States No. 626 Argued March 2, 1909 Decided April 5, 1909 213 U.S. 103 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus A penalty may be recovered by a civil action, although such an action may be so far criminal in its nature that the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself therein in respect to any matter involving his being guilty of a criminal offense. A suit brought by the United States to recover the penalty prescribed by 4 and 5 of the Alien Immigration Act of March 3, 1903, c. 1012, 32 Stat. 1213, is a civil suit and not a criminal prosecution, and when it appears by undisputed testimony that a defendant has committed an offense against those sections, the trial judge may direct a verdict in favor of the government. The facts, which involve the right of a trial judge to direct a verdict in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.190
1. The appellant in this second appeal sued in the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman upon a judgment which he had obtained against the present respondent in the District Court of Kandy for a certain sum of money due on a promissory note. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge in appeal, dismissed the suit on the ground that the judgment of the Ceylon Court having been passed in absen-tem was not binding upon the respondent who is a native of British India and was not a resident at the time of the action in Ceylon. They also found against the contention of the appellant that the respondent has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Ceylon Court.2. Upon the first question the contention of the learned Vakil for the appellant is, that rules of Private International Law apply only to judgments of Courts of Foreign Independent States and not to that of a Court of a Country which is subject to the same sovereignty as the country in which the judgment in question is sued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.277
1. This appeal is directed against an award made by the Special Land Acquisition Judge of the 24-Per-gannahs in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquired is situated in Chitla in the suburbs of Calcutta and covers an area of 6 cottahs 10 chittaks and 17 square feet. The Collector valued the land at Rs. 600 per cottah. The claimant, who is the appellant before this Court, was dissatisfied with this valuation and obtained a reference to the District Judge before whom he claimed Rs. 1,200 a cottah. The District Judge, however, accepted the valuation made by the Collector.2. The claimant has now appealed to this Court and on his behalf the decision of the District Judge has been assailed on two grounds, namely, first, that the land ought to have been valued at Rs. 1,200, a cotiah, and secondly, that the amount which has been awarded as damages for severance and injurious affection of the other lands of the claimant is inadequate.3. So far as the second question is conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.311
1. In this case the appellant is the plaintiff in a mortgage suit in which the respondents are defendants being the sons of the purchaser of two of the mortgaged properties. They need not be distinguished from their father and have been referred to throughout this appeal as defendant No. 4.2. The suit was dismissed in the lower Court on the grounds that, the attestation of the mortgage-deed has not been proved and that the mortgage was not true and bona fide.' Both points have been urged before us by the respondent. Whatever we may think of the first the second is that on which the respondent seeks, to establish his claim in the first place. We will, therefore, deal with it first.3. The bond was executed on the 23rd August 1893 by Musammat Sharbat Koer as guardian of Balmakund Das. He was the son of Janki Das who died before 1883 when Musammat Sharbat Koer became guardian, and who carried on some kind of banking or money-lending business. This seems to have failed and Balmakund at all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank Co. - 215 U.S. 33 (1909) U.S. Supreme Court Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank Co., 215 U.S. 33 (1909) Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank and Trust Company No. 306 Submitted February 25, 1909 Decided November 8, 1909 215 U.S. 33 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived from the federal Constitution and statutes, and is like unto that of the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Judiciary Act of 1789; it is not subject to limitations or restraints by state legislation giving jurisdiction to state courts over similar matters. While federal courts cannot seize and control property which is in the possession of the state courts and have no jurisdiction of a purely probate character, they can, as courts of chancery, exercise jurisdiction, where proper diversity of citizenship exists, in favor of creditors, ...
Tag this Judgment!